October Term 2008 · Docket 06-1595
Does reporting harassment to a supervisor count as protected opposition under Title VII?
Vicky Crawford reported harassment to city officials. Her employer fired her. She claims retaliation. The city argues her report was not protected opposition.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Eric Schnapper argued Crawford's report was protected opposition. He stated she reported specific harassment by a director. He claimed this conduct fell under the first clause of section 704(a).
Ms. Blatt argued the case should resolve under the opposition clause. She stated employees do not need magic words to express opposition. She argued they do not need to initiate the interview to be protected.
Mr. Young argued Title VII resulted from a congressional compromise. He stated it balanced employee and employer interests. He warned against too broad an entry into retaliation claims.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of Title VII protection. It asks if an employee's specific report of harassment qualifies as opposition to unlawful conduct. The answer defines what actions trigger anti-retaliation safeguards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 8, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Crawford wants the Court to rule that her specific report of harassment was protected opposition. She seeks a reversal of the lower court's dismissal of her claim.
The city wants the Court to rule that her report was not protected opposition. It seeks an affirmation of the lower court's dismissal of her claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
What each side says
Crawford argues her report was protected under the opposition clause of Title VII. She contends she did not need to use magic words or initiate the interview to be protected.
The city argues Title VII balances employee and employer interests. It contends that broad protection allows juries to decide retaliation based on trivial statements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if a vague statement about harassment being terrible counts as opposition. He worried this would give juries too much power to decide retaliation claims.
Justice Ginsburg asked why the Court focused on hypotheticals. She noted Crawford gave specific testimony about her boss harassing her, not just general opposition to harassment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-37
Why it matters
The outcome defines the threshold for protected activity under Title VII. It determines whether specific reports of harassment trigger anti-retaliation protections. This shapes workplace conduct and employer liability nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-19 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 27-5 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 27-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-21 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 43-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.